Protest and Prejudice

 

It should be obvious to all of even rudimentary intelligence that protest and prejudice aren't one and the same. Prejudice is, in fact, one of the things which may be protested.  It often is protested, in fact.  Similarly, one may be prejudiced against protests and protesters.  

Since the difference between them is obvious, when it's claimed that people who protest are prejudiced, the claim can't reasonably be accepted on its face, without explanation.  Their prejudice and the prejudicial nature of the protest should be established.  If prejudice isn't or can't be established then it may be inferred that those making the claim are, in some sense, prejudiced against the protesters and the protest.

Lately we're deluged with media coverage of protests being made against Israel regarding its actions in Gaza.  We're also imposed upon by posturing politicians and pundits who are apoplectic over those protests and condemn them as anti-semitic.  

Being a Boomer, I've seen, heard of and read about protests since I was a wee lad.  I haven't participated in any, as I'm one of those Boomers who were born late enough to miss the major ones which took place in the 1960s, and am also by nature more an observer of events than a participant in them.  I will participate when in great need, however.

In any case, protests, particularly those which take place on college campuses, don't astonish or appall me.  I consider them somewhat commonplace.  College students are excitable and easily swayed and have a keen sense of injustice, though they aren't necessarily sensible.  They can also be self-righteous and ignorant, though that may be said of humans generally who would rather avoid the rigors of thought and critical thinking. 

It is, or should be, clear that someone who criticizes the state of Israel isn't thereby anti-semitic.  I, personally, think that the creation of Israel assured that the Mideast would be subject to bloody conflict for many years.  That has been the case and I suspect will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.  I don't accept the claim that any people have or are entitled to have a homeland by grant of God. As a result, I don't think Israel is more or less entitled to exist than any other nation.  I don't think that these opinions establish I'm anti-semitic.  Israel is a nation, and is as subject to criticism as any other nation.

No reasonable person can contend that the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel in October of last year were justified.  I think that's apparent.  They were horrific.  If it is being claimed by those protesting against Israel on college campuses that they were justified, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If it's being claimed by the protesters that Israel's response to those attacks is excessive, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If anti-semitism is properly defined as hatred of or prejudice against Jews qua Jews (which seems a common definition of it), wouldn't the consideration of whether conduct directed at them is justified, or whether their conduct in certain circumstances is excessive, indicate that the fact that they are Jewish isn't the sole basis for approval or condemnation?

Mere criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza should not be deemed anti-semitic.  Is more than that involved in the protests?  If so, then clearly there should be concern about them.  In particular, if Jewish people are being targeted merely because their Jewish, and for being Jewish, the claim of anti-semitism is justified.

The latest protests, at Columbia University, seem peaceful; certainly in comparison to some of those protests engaged in by Boomers against the Vietnam War, for example.  According to accounts I've read, even the police who were called on by the University to clear students away, resulting in arrests, commented on the fact the protesters were peaceful and the University's reaction excessive.  

Unfortunately, reports regarding what is taking place conflict, and much of what is said and written seem polemical.  There are politicians who claim, or perhaps merely assume, that protests are anti-semitic and Jews are being repressed or are in danger, and demand colleges takes steps.  It's difficult to find much in the way of evidence to support such claims, though.

I admit to suspicion regarding the claims of anti-semitism being made by right-wing politicians and pundits.  Although it's probably unfair to believe that most if not all of them are gibbering, drooling idiots, it seems clear enough that their posturing is politically motivated and disingenuous.  Their relish of the opportunity to be sanctimonious where Ivy League colleges are concerned is too excessive to be genuine.  In fact, I find it disturbing whenever members of Congress insert themselves in matters of most any kind.  I doubt their good faith and believe most of them to be corrupt, that being the case almost necessarily in a political system where the acquisition and spending of money by politicians are of primary concern.

So, the question I think must be answered is:  What is it about the protests being condemned that makes them anti-semitic?  To me, that means:  What is it about them that isn't merely a criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza?  If they aren't anti-semitic, then they should be handled by the authorities like any other protest

Ecclesiastes and (Holy?) War

 

I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture.  But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world.  There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.

Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war.  The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however.  It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state.  A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others.  

If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned.  Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition.  The Crusades were launched by the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!").  Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels.  That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews.  The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.

It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose.  Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire.  The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians.  

Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed.  It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.

From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza.  I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact.  Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas.  That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.

Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social.  Outrage generates outrage.  Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response.  Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism.  What other outrages await us?  Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme.  The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.

Caveat Scriptor: The Harvard Student Statement and the Backlash

 "Let the writer beware."  That, I think and hope, is the English translation of Caveat Scriptor.  I have a disturbing feeling that it may mean "Beware of the Writer" which isn't what I intend to say in this case, though I might in other cases.

"The Statement" being referred to is, as you might suspect, that issued, jointly we're told, by certain Harvard students and student organizations in response to the attacks made by Hamas earlier this month against Israel, targeting civilians primarily if not exclusively.  

That statement is relatively short, or at least versions of it I've seen which purport to be accurate are short.  It doesn't refer to Hamas.  It does, however, assert that Israel is solely responsible for the violence perpetrated by Hamas, refers to the government of Israel as an apartheid regime, and claims that the Palestinians have been repressed by Israel and compelled to live in an open-air prison for two decades.  It states that the violence Israel will perpetuate in responding to the attacks will be the responsibility of Israel alone.

Some of Harvard's corporate donors have responded to the statement and what they consider the insufficiently outraged response to it by its administrators by demanding that the names of those students making or joining in the statements and, presumably, what lawyers may call their personal identifying information, be disclosed.  The donors are concerned that unless they are disclosed they may, inadvertently, hire them.  Presumably, they'll refuse to do so if they learn who they are and may be inclined to vilify them as well.  Given the virulence of their response to the statement, they may hope that others will also refuse to hire them as well and join in blacklisting them.  Not surprisingly, some students have expressed regret at their temerity.

The Statement is clearly wrong, and even reprehensibly so, in ascribing sole responsibility for the attacks by Hamas on Israel and attributing no responsibility to Hamas.  One may sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people without supporting the murderous and brutal actions of a terrorist organization, which is all Hamas appears to be.   As far as I'm aware, Hamas itself has taken no action to benefit the Palestinians; it has merely committed itself to the destruction of Israel--which is not likely to ever take place.  While it's true The Statement makes no mention of Hamas, it's clearly intended to refer to the recent attacks by Hamas, and absolves it of any guilt for its atrocities, which is deplorable.

Nevertheless, I have to admit I find the reactions of the donors in question to be rather surprising, for a number of reasons.  Let me note, first, that many people of my age and slightly older than me said and did things while college students not all that different from what those who wrote or joined in The Statement have said and done.  It happens that at that time, the U.S. itself was being blamed for violence perpetrated by others, some of whom were student activists, some of whom were from North Vietnam, some of whom were black, some of whom were South African, some of whom were communists--I could go on.

We Boomers while in college and (for a time) afterwards were rabid political and social critics and protesters, and quite ready to blame those we perceived as the oppressors for the violence of those we thought were oppressed by them.  Some of us were violent in the cause of the oppressed, or so we thought.  The Statement considered in that context isn't unique or uniquely reprehensible.  I wonder whether those who now condemn The Statement are Boomers who regret or have forgotten their own youthful conduct.

Let me note also that college students are often naive, foolish, immature, thoughtless, subject to peer-pressure and privileged, and may act stupidly and irresponsibly.  I, personally, do not think or have reason to believe that students at Harvard are more intelligent, sophisticated, reasonable and discerning than students at other colleges.  I think they can be just as stupid and callous as their less favored brothers and sisters.

It therefore isn't apparent to me that condemning Harvard for failing to condemn the students in question with sufficient ferocity, ceasing donations to that institution, and seeking to expose and blacklist the students in question in a way which may negatively impact their careers and future lives, is appropriate or even sensible.  It serves to call attention to The Statement, in fact.  When the financially High and Mighty among us begin to throw their weight around to get their way and seek vengeance against those who disturb them, particularly insignificants like undergraduates, it isn't a pretty or inspiring sight.  

The Never-Ending (Horror) Story

I've noted previously in this blog that I don't think Israel has a religious or historical "right" to the territory it governs, or occupies, or would like to govern.  Not only are there difficulties in asserting that a "right" of such a nature exists in the first place, for any nation, but--for me at least--the thought of God decreeing that anyone is entitled to real estate seems absurd.  Also, I question whether the area of land in question can be described as a "homeland" of the Jewish people since it has been ruled, for the most part, by others since Babylon occupied it and the Jewish people, in large numbers, left it long ago.

Babylon was of course succeeded by the Persians, who were succeeded by Alexander and his successors, who were succeeded by Rome, which was succeeded by Arabs and the Ottomans and so on until 1948.  That's a very long time.  At least from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, most Jews lived elsewhere.  Thus the Jewish Diaspora, which some maintain commenced with the Babylonian Captivity.

The creation of Israel, it must be recognized, virtually guaranteed conflict with those who lived where it is now located.  That conflict has continued since its creation.  It seems likely to continue ad infinitum.  It may therefore be claimed, reasonably I think, by those who don't believe in the Jewish homeland or that God gifted it to the Jews, that its creation was unfortunate.  

That said, Israel exists and is a sovereign nation.  It should be treated as such.  A sovereign nation may defend itself.  It cannot be erased from the world.  It will continue to exist, unless perhaps the entire region or the world itself is destroyed. 

Claims that Israel should be dissolved or destroyed and efforts to achieve those claims are, therefore, futile and unreasonable.  When those efforts amount to brutal, ruthless terrorism of the kind being perpetrated now by Hamas, they should be denounced and deplored. 

The fact that Israel is a sovereign nation does not mean that it has any right to, or should, expand its borders particularly if it results in the additional displacement of those already displaced by its creation.  Its expansion in the form of new "settlements" beyond its borders isn't justified by the claims of zealots who think the land is theirs because God gave it to the Jews, which are absurd.  It's expansion to the harm of others is unjustifiable.

What should take place in any reasonable world is a resolution which wouldn't include either the destruction of Israel or its expansion, and the recognition of the fact that Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs should be accorded the same treatment, and have the same rights.  However, the effective leaders of the conflicting peoples have no interest in such a resolution.  One side wants Israel destroyed, the others want the Palestinians to be removed or rendered harmless.

Can reason be imposed, can peace be imposed, when those fighting one another have no interest in either?  It's doubtful.  Perhaps the only option is to act in such a way as to restrict or contain the harm which will be caused by the intransigent on both sides.   That will be difficult enough to do, but may be more achievable than any peace.

 

Blood and Soil

Yes, Blut und Boden, as some used to say.  It was a phrase imposed by the more romantic, and therefore the more dangerous, Germans not all that long ago.  The thought (if we may use that word) behind it was not limited to the Nazis, of course, but I think permeated German thinking since at least the time of the French revolution, and certainly after Napoleon humiliated Prussia in several battles thereafter.

The belief that descent and a homeland defines a people, and more particularly the rights of a people, is not peculiar to the Germans, however.  Others have taken a similar position.  And here I tread on shaky ground, as I address in this post the tendency of certain Israelis to believe that they have certain rights with respect to certain lands, the consequences of that tendency, and how to address that tendency as a practical matter.

In an effort to deflect criticism if not anger, let me note I'm not saying the Israelis are Nazis.  It happens that various peoples have thought they have rights to land, and indeed the exclusive right to land, for various reasons.  These reasons seem to me to be primarily mystical or religious in nature.  I don't mean to single out Israelis for doing so, or contend that only they and the Nazis have done so, or imply that they in particular are misguided or wrong.  It happens that the fact that certain Israelis do so, now, has great significance, now, however.

I should note initially that I don't find religious claims to land compelling.  I don't accept the belief that God conveyed property or the right to use property to any people or person.  Nor do I think that the fact particular people have lived on property some time in the past, for however long a period, means necessarily that they have the right to live on that property exclusively, now and forever.

As a result, I think any such claim should be disregarded, or at least should be treated as of no particular weight in making any decision regarding who should possess what property in this dispute.  If God is to be invoked in addressing this problem, it will not be addressed, or resolved.  It will be perpetuated.  Invoking God seems to have this effect in most cases.

So, when the amiable Mr. Netanyahu comes to these shores to lecture us on such a basis I am unimpressed.  And, to put all my cards on the table, I should say that as an American (or more properly a United Statesman as Gore Vidal has said) I find it annoying to be lectured by the leader of a state so completely dependent on American aid and protection on most any subject.

In my not necessarily humble but likely unimportant opinion, the United States in addressing this problem, as I think it must, should put aside any claims based on God as grantor on a deed or in any other capacity, or on historical occupation of land.  The simple fact is that the state of Israel exists, and its existence has been the focus of conflict and probably will be the focus of conflict for some time.  It is the focus of conflict in part due to the fact that Palestinians also exist.  Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are going to disappear.  This should be taken as a given, regardless of what Israelis or Palestinians may believe.  This should be made clear to them.

It should be made clear to both parties that as far as the United States is concerned, their claims as to right to land based on religion or history are not relevant to resolution of the dispute.  It should also be made clear to them (what should in any case be clear to any reasonable parties to a dispute) that at least as far as the United States is concerned, that if there is to be a settlement, neither party will be satisfied with its terms.  That's what settlement is about.  They must decide, in other words, whether they prefer to engage in this dispute endlessly, with all that entails, or whether they desire to take this issue off the table, with all that entails  They must make a judgment regarding which alternative they are willing to accept.

If the United States is to be involved as mediator, they should be told that it will engage in that function only after they make a judgment which alternative they wish to pursue.  That is to say that if the U.S. determines that a settlement is unlikely, it will quite simply walk away from the mediation, after having politely noted to both parties its continued involvement is a waste of time. 

If the Israelis take the position they will not give up any land they possess, this is in effect an indication that they are not interested in settling.  If that's the case, there is no reason for the United States to mediate.

The United States must then make a decision regarding what role it wishes to take if that role will not be that of a mediator.  In making that decision, it should likewise give no weight to religious or historical considerations.  It should consider what's in its own best interests, economic and otherwise, as that should always be its primary concern.

On the Proposed Israeli Loyalty Oath

As lawyers know, the word "and" can be quite significant.  We tend to be sensitive to its use.  It's conjunctive.  So if, for example, a legal right or duty is conditioned on the existence of "X and Y", then normally both X and Y must exist in order for the legal right or duty to apply.  On the other hand, if it's conditioned on "X or Y" then the right or duty will apply if either X or Y exists.

When one pledges loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic state" then, one is in the legal sense pledging loyalty to one that is both Jewish and democratic, not one or the other.  This fact seems to create difficulties.

The proponents of the oath maintain that Israel has been a Jewish state since its foundation; it was, after all, created to be a homeland for Jewish people.  This is apparently noted in its Declaration of Independence (from what, I wonder?--I must check that out).  The fact that it may be a state associated with a particular religion would not in itself make it remarkable.  There are nations which contend they are Islamic, as we know.  As loyalty oaths are fairly common, it would be unsurprising if such nations required loyalty to an Islamic state.  Why should there be any outcry over the fact a Jewish state requires an oath of loyalty to itself as peculiarly Jewish?

Citizens of the U.S., used to the idea of the separation of church and state, may claim that a nation cannot be simultaneously Jewish (or Islamic, or Christian) and democratic--although some of the louder and more belligerent among them seem to claim it is itself a Christian nation.  But that separation is one dreamed up (fortunately, I think) by the shrewd lawyers, merchants and farmers we call the Founders; it isn't a universal characteristic of a democratic government or nation.

But Israel is in this case, and in others, extraordinary.  Some of its population isn't Jewish, and apparently don't wish to be.  It's unlikely they will be eager to pledge their loyalty to a Jewish state of any kind.  It is surrounded by nations which are not Jewish, and apparently don't wish to be, and indeed would rather there would not be a Jewish nation next door to them, or perhaps anywhere in the world.  So, requiring such an oath in these circumstances appears unwise, as a purely practical, political and military matter, because it is bound to create difficulties among Israel's population, its neighbors and, because of the importance of the region, to the world at large.

This kind of problem will arise whenever nations are considered as anything but secular entities.  When they are not merely nations or governments, but are instead nations, governments and religious, or ethnic, and exclusively so, difficulties result, due to intolerance and discrimination.

So we should be thankful to the Founders here in this great republic, and hope that their work won't be overturned by those politicians, pundits and preachers of our time who seek to do so.